5.3 Vortec Starting to Burn Oil

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

UnclePeco

Joined
Mar 18, 2014
Messages
38
Location
Northeast PA
Hi Guys - My 2009 Tahoe with the 5.3 and cylinder deactivation has recently started to burn about a quart every 1500 miles. The last OC was 2 quarts 5w30 Maxlife High Mileage and 4 quarts 5w40 M1 because I thought I had more Maxlife laying around and it was all I had. Filter is a Fram TG. I'm at 7k on the OCI right now and just put in my second quart of Maxlife makeup.

I normally would not have used more than a quart makeup at this point. It is perfectly dry underneath and on the garage floor. No smoke seen or smelt. Do you think the 5w40 had something to do with it? I usually would run it to 8-10k so will be doing a change soon. Should I try another oil? Go with an HDEO? It does get into the single digests in the mountains here in Northeast PA pretty often this time of year. I do drive about 30k a year so can change oil often. The truck has had a steady diet of Maxlife for the past 100k.

There is 211k on it now and it runs smoother than ever and I want it to get too 300k. Thoughts are appreciated. Cost of oil is not too important to me as it is pennies compared to the overall cost of the car.
 
Considering you are at 211k, you arent doing bad. Single digit temps arent much of a challenge. You are mixing in plain M1 with maxlife so thatd be my guess. Go back to full on maxlife for a couple OCI's and see if it improves. Otherwise go to dino or heavier oil. A 10w oil wouldnt be an issue in that truck
 
It could be using more due to the mix of oil. 2 different formulas simply not playing nice.
 
Son-in-laws 2012 Chevy 1500 5.3 started burning oil at 35K miles suddenly. So bad it fouled #4 plug. GM tech(worked from home) piston soaked the the de-active cylinders. Fresh oil changed and they used tuner to turn off cylinder deactivation. Smoked like crazy for 75'ish miles, then slowly cleared up. Seems the center cylinder rings get stuck and then cylinders burn oil. Either run the stuffing out of it once in a while or turn off cylinder deactivation. Tech said it is really important to not go over 3-4K miles on oil change. Over 20K miles later with the cylinder de-active turned off, zero burning oil and the same or a tad better MPG. Cylinder deactivation is not one of GM's better ideas.
 
Last edited:
I can't think of a single instance where cylinder deactivation has not caused some sort of undesirable consequence. The manufacturer gets their mileage target, you (eventually) pay the bill.
 
Assuming the PCV fix has been done and didn't help, I'd try changing to M1 AFE 0w-30. I know of all the oils I tried in my Expedition, it was one of the few that had absolutely zero visible consumption over an extended OCI.

If you haven't done the PCV, start there as another poster noted.
 
Originally Posted By: double vanos
I can't think of a single instance where cylinder deactivation has not caused some sort of undesirable consequence. The manufacturer gets their mileage target, you (eventually) pay the bill.



You do realize that GM sells 40,000 units a a month of Silverado/Sierra combined? Towards the end of the 2011 model year they made some updates to address (the relativity few in number) that were burning oil?

So-you can do the math of 40,000 units a month (since '07) when cylinder deactivation came out and the number that are having problems.

I do realize the "truck forums" make it sound like these things are leaving a trail of metal all over the roadway-but that is indeed not the case.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: CKN
Originally Posted By: double vanos
I can't think of a single instance where cylinder deactivation has not caused some sort of undesirable consequence. The manufacturer gets their mileage target, you (eventually) pay the bill.



You do realize that GM sells 40,000 units a a month of Silverado/Sierra combined? Towards the end of the 2011 model year they made some updates to address (the relativity few in number) that were burning oil?

So-you can do the math of 40,000 units a month (since '07) when cylinder deactivation came out and the number that are having problems.

I do realize the "truck forums" make it sound like these things are leaving a trail of metal all over the roadway-but that is indeed not the case.


How many of stated 40K units a month equipped with the 5.3? What is the percentage of 5.3's have the oil consumption issue? Even if it is 2% this is over the standard figure for the a pickup manufactured in the 21st century.
 
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: CKN
Originally Posted By: double vanos
I can't think of a single instance where cylinder deactivation has not caused some sort of undesirable consequence. The manufacturer gets their mileage target, you (eventually) pay the bill.



You do realize that GM sells 40,000 units a a month of Silverado/Sierra combined? Towards the end of the 2011 model year they made some updates to address (the relativity few in number) that were burning oil?

So-you can do the math of 40,000 units a month (since '07) when cylinder deactivation came out and the number that are having problems.

I do realize the "truck forums" make it sound like these things are leaving a trail of metal all over the roadway-but that is indeed not the case.


How many of stated 40K units a month equipped with the 5.3? What is the percentage of 5.3's have the oil consumption issue? Even if it is 2% this is over the standard figure for the a pickup manufactured in the 21st century.



While it's hard to know how many have the 5.3-it's is safe to say that is by far the most popular motor. In manufacturing (since you are quoting figures) what is the norm failure/defective rate?
 
Originally Posted By: CKN
While it's hard to know how many have the 5.3-it's is safe to say that is by far the most popular motor. In manufacturing (since you are quoting figures) what is the norm failure/defective rate?


A Chrysler supplier was quoted in 1998 a 1% failure rate was acceptable 20 years ago for a single part failure. GM's AFM 2007-11 either due to design or manufacturing likely a combination of both seems to not hit this mark.
 
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
Originally Posted By: timeau
I don't understand why people ignore staff that works:
https://www.amazon.com/Bg109-Engine-Performance-Restoration-Makers/dp/B00IAPLIDK
http://xado.us/chemicals-and-fluids/engine-products/oil-system/oil-system-cleaners/vita-flush-oil-system-%D1%81leaner

Both works great.

That second site.. Is that US based or international? The English is poor.

Site could be hosted anywhere :-)
At least I received their parsels from USA, if I am not mistaken, from Illinois. Can't say that they are cheap, but works fine. They are Ukranian company.
 
Originally Posted By: CKN
40,000 units a month for the last 10 years at 1 per cent. OK...


OK I can see this is rather tough due to the fact it was a 4 model year run 2007-2011. GM did not manufacture 40K trucks a month with the 5.3. GM did not even produce 40K 1/2 ton pickups a month during this period because sales peaked at 37.5K a month in 2011. So it is not 1% of 40K.
 
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: CKN
40,000 units a month for the last 10 years at 1 per cent. OK...


OK I can see this is rather tough due to the fact it was a 4 model year run 2007-2011. GM did not manufacture 40K trucks a month with the 5.3. GM did not even produce 40K 1/2 ton pickups a month during this period because sales peaked at 37.5K a month in 2011. So it is not 1% of 40K.


The sales figures have been 40,000 a month of the sales info I have seen. At any rate it's millions of 5.3 motors on the road up to the redesign of the motor about three years ago.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom